Welcome! I have not posted in a while, but I have been writing. The result today is a double article. Dive in!
What do polar bears, seals, walruses,
and sage grouse have in common?
Give up?
They are all tools that the environmental movement
is trying to fraudulently get listed as endangered to prevent
any domestic gas and oil production.
This is nothing new, but it has become very blatant.
Since the American people are feeling the pain of 30 years of
failed environmentalist driven energy policy as it manifests itself
in the form of $4+ gas and other rising energy costs, they want
action, and more specifically, domestic energy development. This
brings crisis to the environmental groups who are against any
energy usage at all, and that calls for desperate measures.
For 30 years now environmentalists have been able to
stop housing development, stop energy development, stop people
from logging or using forests, and stop people from using their
own land as they see fit. They do this by creatively suing the
government under the ESA, supposedly on the behalf of some listed
critter, bug, or plant.
In recent months this has accelerated to a grand scale.
First came the polar bear. They decided that even though there
was no evidence at all of declining populations of polar bears,
they would try to get them fraudulently listed under the ESA as
endangered.
Why?
It would be the muscle behind enforcing the great global
warming hoax. Their claim is that global warming is reducing sea
ice, and polar bears are endangered because of it. Never mind
that polar bears can easily swim 40 miles, or that we had record
high amounts of arctic sea ice last year. Never mind that the
earth has been much warmer in the history of the polar bear, and
they survived it to flourish today. Never mind that there is no
accurate count or ongoing census of polar bear populations that
even vaguely indicates a decline of the species. Never mind that
there is NO global warming and has not been for 10+ years.
The polar bear is just an excuse.
Had they been successful, it would have brought our
country to its knees as the army of environmental lawyers could
sue to stop and control virtually any energy usage that is carbon
based. That means no gas, no natural gas, no ethanol, no coal/electric
power, nothing other than solar, wind, or nukes. Any carbon emissions
would be grounds for a lawsuit based of the fraudulent premise
that it would cause global warming and harm the polar bear. That
includes humans exhaling, but not enviro-lawyers flying to Washington
to sue the government, or algore's globe trotting ways.
Ambitious, aren't they? They virtually wanted to put
the entire US energy policy at the whim of Sierra Club/Earth First!/NRDC/Greenpeace
lawyers.
As it turned out, they settled for a threatened listing
after much caterwauling. They couldn't let on that it had nothing
to do with bears, so they had to settle for a threatened listing.
There are probably several lawsuits pending for review to try
to change that, there is a lot at stake.
So a couple of weeks later, people are talking about
drilling ANWAR and other places in the arctic because they don't
like $4 gas. Alarm bells go off at the evil lawyer-monkey caves
of the enviro corporations, and they need to do something fast.
The answer? Walruses and seals. They are sure that they can fraudulently
get walruses & seals listed as endangered, and since they
roam most of the Arctic, that would shut down any gas or oil production,
including what we have now. That one is still pending.
The latest outrageous attempt by the evil green flying
lawyer-monkeys to prevent energy development in the USA is the
greater sage grouse. Environmentalist paid
scientists claim that sage grouse breeding areas are threatened
by oil and gas exploration in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah
and other Western states. Now, keep in mind that there is still
a hunting season for these birds. There probably wouldn't be if
the birds were scarce.
So what is the problem? They just made a big breakthrough
in oil shale development and extraction technology where they
can get the oil goo out of the rocks in a very economical and
environmentally sound way. It just so happens that those states
hold the biggest oil reserve in the USA, and possibly the world.
Estimates are that there are between 1.5 and 3 TRILLION barrels
of recoverable oil in those rocks. That is enough to make the
US energy independent for generations. The grouse are not actually
in any danger of being extinct, but their listing would shut down
a lot of future and current gas/oil energy development.
Being against the human race in general, and adamantly
against human prosperity brought on by energy usage, the green
groups are desperate to stop any new energy sources. They are
very well armed with legal teams that twist the ESA for their
own purposes, and with 30 years of experience, they are very good
at it. The polar bear, the seals and walruses, and now the greater
sage grouse are just the latest examples of the frauds perpetrated
by the lawyers from environmental groups as they twist the ESA
to cripple America. The difference is, these are blatant enough
and close enough together that their malignant extremist plan
is now obvious to the great unwashed masses.
Personally I think that they should be pursued under
the RICO (Racketeering In Corrupt Organizations) act for manipulating
energy prices and harming the US economy while fraudulently holding
a tax exemption as an 'educational' organization. Oops, that won't
work at all. The major environmental groups have -get this- *diplomatic
immunity* for working with the UN on various environmental causes
like the UN Man & Biosphere program. It came to be under Clinton
in '96.
So, the Sierra Club brings in probably over 100 million
a year, but they don't own much land. They spend all of the money
on lawyers that specialize in suing the government. In the same
breath, they can't be sued because they have diplomatic immunity?
Wow. I guess that is a pretty strong position to come from.
These people-haters are now turning their full barrage
of lawyers onto the seals, walruses, polar bears, and grouse to
get them to use as future weapons against oil and energy usage.
This brings us to our next post, which asks why...
Enviros love expensive gas. It is
an often repeated goal of theirs to have gas in the 8-10 dollar
range. Why?
There are a couple of answers. The
one most often cited is that they want people to consume less,
be more efficient, and to develop alternative energy sources.
I think that it includes those goals for a lot of the people involved
with the environmental movement, but not the big organizations.
One issue that I have with that
is that any alternative energy source comes with a price tag.
There is a reason that we are still using oil 30 years after the
Arab oil embargo farce of the late 70s. Most of the alternative
energy schemes don't work as well as burning oil.
Ethanol is a loosing deal in a dozen
directions. It wrecks your car, it takes more energy to produce
than it provides, it runs food costs up, it would take most of
the country planted in corn to provide for our needs, it causes
air quality issues, it takes huge amounts of water to make, and
it is so corrosive that they will not ship it through pipelines.
That is the short list.
Solar is often held up as a great
savior. Solar is neat, but unreliable. There are dark periods
at night, cloudy days, and huge issues with storage of enough
power to be meaningful on a large scale. There is also the issue
that photovoltaic cells have hit somewhat of a glass ceiling.
They are still working on the next generation. Until they realize
higher efficiency at a lower cost and address storage issues,
solar is not practical for widespread use, or use as locomotion
for our cars and trucks.
Hydrogen presents its own problems.
A big problem is that like ethanol, it takes a lot of energy to
produce. You would need a nuke plant to feed a hydrogen rendering
station, and on a national scale, it would take a lot of infrastructure
to supply our energy needs. I also think that there would be PR
problems selling it. Two words come to mind..Hindenberg, and BOOM>.
No one wants to transport their kids riding on a huge hydrogen
bomb. Another passing thought, with water as exhaust, wouldn't
the roads get wet and slippery in traffic, and horribly icy in
winter?
Hybrid and electric cars are coming
along, but they have a long way to go. At the moment, they are
hugely expensive to repair or maintain. If the battery or electric
motor goes out, it is many thousands of dollars to repair. Some
current estimates show that a hybrid car costs 4x as much to own
over the life of a car VS a traditional car. Being a prole my dropping 3- 6 grand on a battery
or motor ain't gonna happen. Since the US is 95:5 non-wealthy
to wealthy, only a certain socioeconomic class will own these
cars.
There is a secondary problem in
that if these do see widespread distribution, there will be a
significant demand thrown on the nation's electrical grid. That
is the same electrical grid that environmentalists oppose any
upgrades to. They are against hydro, coal, clean coal, nuclear,
and natural gas power plants as well as electrical transmission
lines. So.. where are these idiots going to plug in their new
electric cars?
A distraction here.. Recently they
had a local enviro stooge on the news. After 5 years of delays
and a 200 million dollar cost over run on a 300 million dollar
power line project, they finally opened the 300 mile transmission
line. The news had this enviro-dolt green group leader on TV crying
about how the cost over runs would raise everyone's electric bills.
Yes dummy, we will see an increase due to the cost over runs
that you personally cost us with endless environmental lawsuits
and harassment. You cost rate payers 5 years and 200 million dollars
on a basic power line project, and completely missed that you
and your little green buddies are the malignancy that we will
all pay for. Please don't breed.
Ok, so they want expensive gas to
make their untenable alternate energy schemes look good. That
is a start.
They also want expensive gas for
more reasons that that. One is to reduce usage, and therefore
pollution. That is problematic in a few ways. First of all, we
are already using considerably less gas per capita than we used
to only a decade or two ago. One article that I saw claimed that
between population growth, mass transit, price hikes, and increased
efficiency, energy use per capita is down almost 50% since the
70s. We have more efficient lights, refrigerators, air conditioning,
and the cars are more efficient too. My '74 Gremlin got about
14 MPG, my 13 year old '95 mini van gets 25 MPG, and many small
cars are above 30 or 40 MPG.
At this point a lot of the easy
answers have been used, and now we have the hard part of increasing
efficiency to deal with. To illustrate my point, can you really
make the Geo Metro any smaller? Here in the land of 400+ pound
bears, 150 pound deer, and 110,000 pound logging trucks going
60mph common on the road, I can only pray that they do not. The
trade off between high gas mileage and safety is here and now.
The easy stuff has been done. From here on any efficiency improvements
will be very costly, and the currency is human lives.
Here is the real crux of the
biscuit. The real reason that environmentalists
want expensive gas is that it will stop urban sprawl and country
living as the price of gas forces people to move to the cities
where they can easily be controlled. This fits well with the goals
of the Wildlands Project, and that makes the watermelons happy.
The Wildlands Project is a 50-100
year goal/conspiracy of the major environmental groups and the
UN to "Rewild" and make off limits to humans, some 93-95%
of the US landmass and resources. Read that again. If you are
an American, it should anger you at length. The Wildlands Project
is a 50-100 year goal/conspiracy of the major environmental groups
and the UN to "Rewild" and make off limits to humans,
some 93-95% of the US landmass and resources.
About half of the US would be core
wilderness where no human ever goes, another 40-45% would be barrier
zones with almost no human trespass.
When the hell did we agree to that?
Here is a map of the Wildlands project
as seen on the UN web site. People get to occupy the green areas.
Here is a bigger version of
the image. There is not much human
habitat there for 300 million people, is there?
Here are a few links about the Wildlands
project.
http://www.discerningtoday.org/wildlands_map_of_us.htm
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/wilderness/twp_map.htm
*** http://www.outdoorwire.com/access/education/nm_twp/nm_twp_pt3.htm
***
http://www.bitterroot.com/grizzly/coffman.htm
It is a truly evil plot, and it
is very real. That is why the green slime is always closing down
public lands to the public, using endangered species to stop development,
setting up roadless areas, forcing wolves, grizzlies, and cougars
on us, stopping logging on public lands, and slowly closing rural
America off to humans. They want to take over the country and
its resources, and then control its population.
The $8-10 gas that enviros lust
after is a big part of this, as it pushes all sorts of rural and
suburban people and businesses out of the countryside and into
carefully planned 'sustainable' cities *where they can be
controlled through scarcity of resources*. You can not build your own house from your own trees,
kill dinner, grow food and fiber for clothes, or get your own
water source in the city. I can do all of that and more on my
piece of heaven here in the northern forest. By controlling those
essential needs in the city, the powers at hand can easily control
the people.
The $8-$10 gas that environmentalists
seek is a key part of the Wildlands Project. It is the key catalyst
to get people to move from the country to the cities where they
can be more easily controlled. It is a very grand attempt to take
control over the country and the population without a shot being
fired or an up or down vote by the people.
If some group of brown shirts marched
into my town and said that they are taking over, they would swiftly
be introduced to a well ordered and very well armed militia. It
would not go well for them at all. Since most of us drive gas
guzzling 4x4 trucks to deal with the snow, mud, terrain, hunting
and cutting firewood, and other semi-frontier lifestyle challenges,
high gas prices are our soft underbelly. With expensive gas, people
are now voluntarily selling their homes and weekend retreats in
favor of city life. They are voluntarily surrendering to a plot
that they never saw coming.
So, why do environmentalists like
expensive gas? It makes their untenable alternative energy schemes
look good, and it helps them conquer the suburban and country
folk and herd them into cities without having an armed revolution.
Once they are in the cities, they are easily controlled.
The fun part is, you actually have
a say in this. If you want 8-10 dollar gas, 95% of the US off
limits, and all of the neat stuff that the UN & environmental
groups have in mind for you, just keep voting for those democrats.
The Stemster